Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I had this conversation earlier. I think it is a natural question to compare the two similar acts in terms of violent/destructive rioting. Especially so since they are individually representative of both ends of the growing political distance between left/right in our country.

My logic is not perfect by any means but I see a key difference between; 1) BLM was a group of citizens protesting against what is essentially abuse of power/government and they want change. They want legislative action that holds cops accountable. Doesn't matter if you agree with it, but this cause and their right to protest is the most American thing I've seen in a long time. Sure, there are people that took it too far and protesting turned to rioting. But protesting for action and change are patriotic acts.

2) On the other hand, today's events are almost opposite. It's been driven/lead by senior members of government. Using lies and propaganda, conditioning a group of citizen sympathizers over a long period of time to distrust media, distrust opposing "facts" or anyone that disagrees with Trumps agenda. Weaponize this group of people to seize power and considerably fracture our democracy. It's the least patriotic and perhaps treasonous thing I could ever imagine. But they think they are the patriots. It's just so backwards to me.



Your logic is impeccable, but there is a lot of strawmaning and questionable assumptions.

It seems likely that the entire political spectrum wants cops held accountable. It is a fairly non-partisan issue that corruption of the police is a massive problem. The right wing hates the idea of people not following the rules, and the left is usually suspicious of the police at best.

And you've judging a right to protest about the corruption of the police force as morally American while protesting corruption in the electoral process is somehow unpatriotic. Those are both extremely civic things to be protesting, the equivalence is very strong. Both are core US principles of freedom and self governance.

Also the idea that the right wing protestors are more organised than the left is extremely suspect. The left are stereotypically much more organised and mobilised for protest - left wing politics has a long and proud history of working effectively through mass movements. Protestors are one of the pools the left wing draws its candidates for (there is that wonderfully classic photo of Bernie Sanders being arrested, for example). Trump is a more iconic figurehead but the left has far more effective logistical and advocacy support around protests. BLM protest leaders quite possibly are going to be a part of the next generation of Democrat leadership.


> It seems likely that the entire political spectrum wants cops held accountable.

Cue the laugh track!


> On the other hand, today's events are almost opposite. It's been driven/lead by senior members of government. Using lies and propaganda, conditioning a group of citizen sympathizers over a long period of time to distrust media, distrust opposing "facts" or anyone that disagrees with Trumps agenda. Weaponize this group of people to seize power and considerably fracture our democracy. It's the least patriotic and perhaps treasonous thing I could ever imagine. But they think they are the patriots. It's just so backwards to me.

This is correct to a degree but it is debunked by the President's plain language in his speech prior to the violence at the Capitol where he asked the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically" protest at the Capitol.

It becomes difficult to make the accusation that the violence is incited when it is very explicitly said that the protest should be peaceful.

During the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, members of Congress were confronted in elevators and hallways of the Capitol building by protesters. These protests were also based on unproven accusations and the people were weaponized to seize power as a ploy because they did not have the requisite votes as per the constitutional process. Intimidation and invasion of the building was seen very differently when it came to a lifelong appointment of a Supreme Court justice.

I would argue that the politicians from both parties share blame in allowing the discourse to escalate like this. To condemn only one party for it is not helpful at all.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: